Thanks to the Global Union Research Network (GURN) for having sent Noblecourt’s article around (Michel Noblecourt, Le big bang du syndicalisme international, Le Monde, July 26, 2004).I had a good laugh over it. Yes, I thought this was a pretty funny article, if you have that kind of sense of humour.
It seems that John Evans, General Secretary of the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) of the OECD, was incensed that Bush wouldn’t receive him at the G8 summit in Sea Island. This raises some questions. The first is why John Evans would want to see Bush in the first place. This must have something to do with the notion, widespread among the “Global Union family”, that lobbying our political enemies can produce positive results, an increasingly bizarre notion since it has been quite clear for decades now that this type of politics is a waste of time.
The second question is why Bush should want to meet John Evans. Bush is a busy man, especially nowadays, where electioneering has seriously cut into his siesta time, so his interviews would be decided on the basis of interest. Where is the interest? It is not immediately obvious in what way meeting John Evans could help Bush. Bush is not courting the unions, only one or two unions in the US, as a movement he is trying to destroy them. What did Evans think he had to offer? He has nothing. Neither is it obvious what Bush had to risk by not meeting John Evans. The wrath of the international labour movement? Give me a break. What does Evans have to threaten Bush with? Nothing. So where is the deal? No deal, no meeting.
Thirdly, why should John Evans be incensed? At the lack of hypocrisy? At not being formally recognized for more than he actually represents? For being caught out trying to punch above his weight?
Noblecourt reports that after being rebuffed by Bush, or rather his aides, John Evans went on to meet Kerry and Clinton. That must have left Bush shaking in his boots.
This brings us to the main topic of the article, which is the discussions under way between the ICFTU and the WCL for a merger, or rather, the joint creation of a new International, by the end of 2006. Since no one is paying attention today to either ICFTU or WCL, the idea is that a new International cobbled together by the ICFTU and the WCL, and sweeping up other international and national structures on the way, would represent a power no one could ignore. Not even Bush.
This is a strange assumption. Power is not generated by adding together superstructures which are in themselves powerless. Numbers mean nothing if there is no political thought and no political will. Organizations are what converts numbers into action and strength. When such organizations are dysfunctional, nothing happens. Most of the 151 million members of the ICFTU and the largely fictional 26 million members of the WCL don’t even know these organizations exist. In a political vacuum, 151 times zero equals zero, 26 times zero equals zero, zero plus zero equals zero.
A renewal of the trade union movement has to come from the membership. It implies the mobilization and participation of the membership, power is generated by the struggles such mobilization and participation make possible and new structures that express new power are the result of such struggles. To mobilize the membership, you need a vision and an objective.
Did the ICFTU initiate or conduct any significant struggles in recent decades? No. Did the WCL? No. Did the ETUC? No (the tragedy at Renault Vilvoorde and the gesticulations at EU summits are best forgotten). Have any of these organizations ever seriously inconvenienced the power structures that dominate our society? No.
What we are dealing with here is not a membership-driven response to the war on labour and the Left, which could indeed herald a renewal of the movement, it is a totally different process. This is a top-down, bureaucratic operation, all about structure and procedure, nothing about vision and objectives, social realities or social struggles.
Not only is the membership not being mobilized, it is not supposed to know. Amazingly, the whole operation is supposed to be secret: Noblecourt reports that the ICFTU and WCL leadership have been meeting “dans le plus grand secret” for the last few months, and have “discreetly” discussed their business in side meetings at the International Labour Conference. This is truly ridiculous. We are supposed to be a democratic movement. Why all this secrecy? Who is supposed to be kept in the dark? Is this a conspiracy? Those opposed to the idea already know anyway, so what is the point? If the ultimate objective is supposed to be the renewal of the trade union movement, should there not be the most open, most widespread, most intensive and most public discussion, on all the web sites?
Noblecourt tells us that the chief artisan of the operation is Emilio Gabaglio, former general secretary of the ETUC. That does tell us something. Gabaglio is an authoritarian centralizer, and Noblecourt also tells us that the new International is likely to look like a “world-wide ETUC” – presumably, without the European Commission to pay for it. That is hardly a “big bang” of the trade union movement. This is building an air-raid shelter for panic-stricken bureaucrats.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the idea of folding the Global Union Federations into the new structure has come up yet again in the context of the “big bang” discussions (as rumour has it, through leaks from all those secret talks). We all remember, of course, where this idea first originated: from the greatest authoritarian centralizers of all times, the WFTU. Fortunately it failed then and it will fail now. Not that very many GUFs today are in the forefront of significant struggles (that is a separate story), but such stirrings of life in the international trade union movement as are left, that’s where they are. Subordinating them to a centralized structure that is unable to make things happen but can only prevent things from happening would mean killing the last remaining structures of the international trade union movement with a potential for delivering to the membership. If you want to know, look at the European Trade Union Federations.
Noblecourt finally reports that most of the elements of the grand blueprint remain to be spelled out (in secret discussions, one presumes). There is a lot about process and structure, but he also mentions common demands, and the perspective of arriving at “social change” through trade union action. He finally asks if the new International will “openly claim to be reformist”. This is really naïve. The issue has long ago ceased to be “reform or revolution”, it is now “reform or submission”. A seriously reformist trade union International would be quite a left-wing challenge.
One would never guess that all this discussion takes place in the context of the most important mobilization of social movements that is unfolding since the end of the last world war. Are we in a bureaucratic bubble, impervious to what is going on around us? Our membership certainly isn’t, because it can’t afford to be.
The social movements say: “another world is possible”. That’s what we used to say, and we even had some pretty good ideas what this other world might look like. Unless and until we go back to basics, and recover our original vision, with a perspective of fundamental social change, there will be no “big bang” and no renewal of the international labour movement.
The starting point must be to challenge the legitimacy of the system. We need to establish standards based on our own values, and clearly say that the only legitimate purpose of any form of social organization, whether local or world wide, or of any enterprise, or of any inter-governmental or economic structure, or of an economic system, is to serve human welfare: the satisfaction of basic needs, and these do not only include food, shelter and clothing but also justice, equality, freedom, access to culture and education, the rule of law. There is no other source of legitimacy.
These values and basic principles together constitute a program of radical democracy diametrically opposed to the currently hegemonic neo-liberalism, and these should become the elements of a basic program which the labour movement will defend at all levels with all appropriate means.
This brings us to the power question. What our leaders need to ask themselves in their secret conclaves is: do we have real enemies or don’t we? if we do, who are they? are we engaged in a worldwide power struggle or not? is losing an option? what do we have to do to prevail?
A Trade Union International worthy of its name would reallocate its resources away from sterile “dialogues” with the institutions of transnational corporate power that are killing us; it would massively invest in organizing in transition countries, where the FDIs are going, to rebuild the movement there; it would keep trade union rights in China on top of its agenda; it would give full political and financial support to those GUFs that are taking on transnational corporations; it would build alliances with workers’ movements in the informal economy and other social movements instead of keeping them at arms’ length; it would declare war on governments which are attacking social welfare and workers’ rights, regardless of their political colour; it would do so publicly and unashamedly, by publicizing the issues as widely as possible, so as to keep the membership informed and involved and to build political support. Had the ICFTU been doing this for the last few years it would not have to worry about merging with anyone today.
A Trade Union International worthy of its name would proudly proclaim: we represent the world’s working class, we represent most of the world’s population, and we are fighting to change the social and economic order to make the world a fit place for human beings to live in. Is this too radical? What is the alternative?
There is, of course, always an alternative. In this case, it is the further decline of the movement. It means accepting the downward spiral of lower levels of ambition, lower capacities of delivering, lower levels of support from the membership, more mergers for the sole purpose of cutting costs, further loss of fighting capacity, strength and authority. No reshuffling of useless structures will solve these problems. Instead of greater unity, there will be further fragmentation. Some organizations will collapse, others will fight on, others will survive as empty shells, for grandstanding at the WEF, if they are still invited.
This is the way the movement, as we know it, will end, not with a bang, but with a whimper. We will then have to wait a decade or two until a new movement emerges. If we get another chance.
August 10, 2004